High CourtsSingle Bench

Sandeep Tandon @ Chhota vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 3 October 2024 · Citation: (2024) 10 CHH CK 1176

HON’BLE JUDGES
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376, 229(A), 174(A) · Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 82, 439, 313 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4, 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
MCRC 4862 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 705 words

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J

1.

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 10-6-2024 in connection with Crime No. 160 of 2024 registered at Police Station – Mujgahan, District Raipur (CG) for alleged commission of offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a missing

report in Police Station against the unknown person stating therein that the on the date of incident the victim girl left her parental house without giving information to her family members. Thereafter during investigation the victim/girl was recovered and her statement was recorded. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, Police have registered the aforesaid offence against the applicant.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the victim girl was a consenting party and she was cross examined before the trial court wherein she has not supported the case of prosecution and even medical rep;ort does not support the case of prosecution. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 10-6-2024 and trial is likely to take sometime, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and also considering the statement of the victim girl recorded before the trial Court wherein she has not supported the case of the prosecution and even the medical report does not support the prosecution case and also the fact that the applicant is in jail since 10-6-2024, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC.

(iv) The applicant\ shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

8.

However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this court, if there is no legal impediment.

9.

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.